State v. Gordon
2016 Ohio 5407
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Deandre Gordon was tried jointly on aggravated robbery, felonious assault, kidnapping (CR-15-594287-A) and an intimidation-of-a-witness charge (CR-15-596591-A) after the state moved to join the cases.
- Victim Tevaughn Darling testified Gordon shot him in the foot, took cash and a rental car, and later gave a recorded statement to police; an edited Instagram video of that statement led to threats and the intimidation charge.
- The trial court granted the state’s joinder motion and disqualified Gordon’s originally retained counsel as a material witness in the intimidation case; new counsel represented Gordon at trial.
- A jury convicted Gordon on the robbery-related counts and firearm specifications but acquitted him of the intimidation charge.
- On appeal Gordon raised joinder/prejudice (including loss of counsel of choice), admission of gang-related evidence, allied-offense merger, weight of the evidence, and ineffective assistance claims; the court reversed the robbery convictions and remanded for retrial based on the joinder/disqualification ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder of the intimidation charge with the robbery case and resulting disqualification of retained counsel was proper | Joinder appropriate under Crim.R. 8/13 because offenses were connected; disqualification warranted because counsel was a material witness in intimidation charge | Joinder caused deprivation of counsel of choice because disqualification removed his retained attorney from the robbery case, producing prejudice | Court found plain error: joinder and consequent disqualification deprived Gordon of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and reversed and remanded for retrial in CR-15-594287-A |
| Whether gang-related evidence and social-media testimony unfairly prejudiced the robbery case | Evidence showed motive/impact of the Instagram post and justified admission; linked to intimidation charge and threats | Admission allowed the jury to consider impermissible, prejudicial matters unrelated to whether Gordon committed the robbery/shooting | Court declined to rest decision on this issue; found prejudice stemmed from loss of counsel rather than the gang evidence, so issue rendered moot by reversal |
| Whether convictions were for allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25(B) | State proceeded to sentencing on merged counts and imposed concurrent/consecutive firearm specs | Gordon argued offenses were allied and should merge for sentencing | Court did not decide the allied-offense issue on appeal (moot after reversal) |
| Whether convictions were against the weight of the evidence and counsel ineffective for failing to object to joinder/admissions | State argued evidence (victim ID, shell casing, recorded statement) supported verdicts | Gordon argued weight favored acquittal and that trial counsel was ineffective for not preserving joinder/ evidentiary objections | Court did not resolve these claims (rendered moot by reversal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and counsel-related protections)
- Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (1948) (right to effective assistance of counsel)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (court’s balancing in denying counsel of choice when conflict exists)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (reversal for erroneous deprivation of counsel of choice may be structural error)
- Long v. State, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) (plain-error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
- Lott v. Ohio, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (joinder principles)
- Keenan v. Ohio, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (1998) (right to counsel of choice is presumptive and can be overcome by conflicts)